Lorie Masters, who had challenged the management bona fides of fellow candidates Karl A. Racine and Paul Zukerberg at the earlier news conference, had a chance to repeat her charges in their company.
She did so, concluding with this thought: “If we’re talking about management, then I think this is an issue that is fair for the voters to consider … There’s a a question in this race about what we want from this attorney general’s office. Do we want the status quo going forward, or do we want real change?”
As he has in the past, Zukerberg pushed back at the suggestion that, as a sole practitioner, he is unqualified for the job of attorney general. But the lawyer also said he was “shocked and appalled” at Masters’s suggestion that he had only handled an average of four cases a year in D.C. Superior Court. That, he said, was a “complete fabrication and utter nonsense” belied by documents he waved indicating he’d handled more than 100 cases in the District’s federal court (more than Masters, he noted) and nearly 300 more in Maryland state courts.
“I have more trial and appellate experience than any lawyer on this panel,” Zukerberg claimed.
But the real sparks surrounded Racine, who managed the powerhouse Venable law firm during a six-year period when two government audits criticized the firm’s billing practices.
“When we’re talking about the first elected attorney general … it’s important that we be open and clear and that everyone’s records be evaluated and scrutinized very closely,” said candidate Edward “Smitty” Smith, when pressed about a tweet his campaign had issued that said that under Racine’s leadership, the law firm had “swindled D.C. taxpayers out of more than $250,000.”
The attacks, Racine said, were the desperate flailings of losing campaigns.
“There’s somebody here who’s breaking out of the pack, winning in every ward; that’s what the polls show,” Racine said. “The person who’s breaking out, winning in every ward, winning the black vote and the white vote, is Karl Racine.”
Those claims were burnished Friday by the release of a WAMU-FM/Washington City Paper poll showing Racine with a 10-point lead on his competition.
Pressed on the audits, Racine said the clients in both cases were happy customers, despite the issues — which in one case included Venable billing at rates higher than those set out in its contract.
“When you’re a leader and you’re a manager of a 600-person law firm, and you have issues you need to resolve with a client, as the CEO of the firm, you get in there and you resolve matters,” he said, acknowledging that in one case Venable “made an appropriate accommodation” to address the concerns. “Our billing was not fraudulent, and our service was excellent.”
Racine also addressed potential conflicts of interest on matters involving Venable clients, saying he “would not hesitate where there was an appearance of a conflict to recuse myself from the matter.”
Smith, however, pressed him not to wait: “Is it not fair to ask … that you be up front and disclose those in advance of people casting their ballots?”
Racine wasn’t having it.
“When Eric Holder went over to become the attorney general of the United States, he came from a great firm,” Racine said. “A lot of clients over there at Covington & Burling — some of the best corporations in the country, okay? Eric Holder certainly did not provide anyone with a list of all the client representations that he has had nor that his firm has had over a period of years. So, Mr. Smith, I am happy to comply with ethics and rules of professional conduct as I have for 25 years. Integrity in this business, sir, matters. Reputations are earned, and my reputation, with respect, is earned, and doesn’t require me to go far beyond what is required to somehow satisfy you.”
To listen to the entire exchange, start at 18:30.
An index to other questions:
4:55: What’s the best argument you’ve ever made?
13:00: What were you doing while Paul Zukerberg was fighting to put this office on the ballot?
39:30: What would your posture be in the D.C. budget autonomy litigation? Would you withdraw your representation and advise the mayor and CFO to follow you?
47:30: Would you continue to defend “First Source” in court?
50:30: How do you anticipate conflicts between the AG and the mayor working themselves out?
57:00: Does the mayor or any other elected official have to worry about you running against them in four years?
1:00:00: How would change OAG’s handling of juvenile justice prosecutions? And what policy charges related to juvenile justice that you would pursue?
1:08:30: Do you think OAG should retain the Child Support Services Division?
1:13:05: How will you address the concerns of OAG support staff? Would you have an open-door policy?
1:18:40: What power would you like to add to the attorney general’s office?
1:24:30: Would you continue antitrust litigation against gasoline titan Joe Mamo?
1:26:30: Would you commit to sending ethics legislation to the council in your first 100 days?
1:30:45: Tell a lawyer joke.